D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Remathilis]

Because - and to repeat - it's immensely easier to take things out than to add them in.

And sure: if it's not working for most, modify it such that it has a better chance of working and-or label it as optional.

Knocking it out entirely isn't the answer, though, as there's going to be those as wants it kept and expecting them to reference an older version of the game just for this doesn't make their lives any easier.

I mean, you can use that argument to justify race/class restrictions, level limits and female strength restrictions being retained. At a certain point, you ask the question why even bother revising the game and just publish 1e into perpetuity.

 

[M_Natas]

For a grittier game than D&D, I would see weapons braking as something cool. Also Spells back firing for Spellcasters (like in DCC) would be cool.
But you would loose probably 90% of the D&D player base if you implement that in like 6e or 5.75e.
But for a gritty game you would also track ressources like food, Spell casting components, arrows, because in a gritty game ressource attrition is paramount to the feel of grittyness. Gritty (at least in my book) always includes scarcetiy.
And that is hard to do in 5e with it's "get everything you spend back after a long rest"-mechanic.

So it would need to be a completely different game.

Unless you put it in as a fun option of giving players a choice:

• You can overcharge that spell, but that gives it a chance to backfire.
• You can try to do extra damage, but it could break your weapon.

Mechanics that are playerchoice driven.

Than players who want to play it safe, can do that and players who want to risk it, can do that, too. That way, also simple encounters for a Level 10 party like an Orc Warband don't risk breaking stuff and the risky stuff is reserved for the high risk.fights were a gamble of "I try to hit extra hard, risking to break my family heirloom, at the chance to kill Vecna!"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

even more so if it allows limitless magic ammo which costs money per shot for anyone else to buy.

Every cantrip is limitless magic ammo.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Not for the first time, I have to note that it's light-years easier to houserule things out than to houserule them in.

Exact opposite of my experience.

Saying D&D has arguably always been bad at dungeon crawling is, one has to think, a rather hot take.

It simply has no mechanics for it and even when it had, they were burried under things like Gary Gygax flexing how many weird words for prostitute he knows and nobody was using them.

Oh, yes, and intentionally so.

Then the game is not creating a realistic medeival society, but made up nonsense that has no way to function.

And old-school D&D with its emphasis on treasure-gathering almost can't help but be or become greedy.

And it is why we mvoed away form this model.

Sure, it's unlikely you'll find such an item on a store shelf but you certainly might spend 4000 g.p. to have one commissioned.

Except if mage cares for comissions and money at all, they're under king's monopoly and won't take your comission.

And when it comes to wealth, after their first adventure or two all adventurers are well within that other 1%, meaning that's the economy we have to deal with.

1. No, I'm sure Elon Musk is not level anything, he uses Noble statblock.
2. I used "real people would commonner statblock" to justify why it is fair comparing level 4 adventurer to Navy Seal with 300 confirmed kills. it had nothign to do with economci argument.

Need? Maybe not. Want? Certainly.

Sadly, greed is universal.

Not true, a mage who can grasp power over laws of physics would care little for material money. it is agai nvery capitalist mindsed, very misguided.

Should all future games continually focus only on the most popular options?

D&D is the gateway game, owned by a corproation that focuses on maximizing profit for shareholders, it will do what is most popular to maximize profits. No CEO will ever make different decision, less they risk being acussed of failing their fucidial duty to the shareholders

 

[Micah Sweet]

Every cantrip is limitless magic ammo.

Yup, and I really don't care for it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Exact opposite of my experience.

It simply has no mechanics for it and even when it had, they were burried under things like Gary Gygax flexing how many weird words for prostitute he knows and nobody was using them.

Then the game is not creating a realistic medeival society, but made up nonsense that has no way to function.


And it is why we mvoed away form this model.

Except if mage cares for comissions and money at all, they're under king's monopoly and won't take your comission.

1. No, I'm sure Elon Musk is not level anything, he uses Noble statblock.
2. I used "real people would commonner statblock" to justify why it is fair comparing level 4 adventurer to Navy Seal with 300 confirmed kills. it had nothign to do with economci argument.

Not true, a mage who can grasp power over laws of physics would care little for material money. it is agai nvery capitalist mindsed, very misguided.

D&D is the gateway game, owned by a corproation that focuses on maximizing profit for shareholders, it will do what is most popular to maximize profits. No CEO will ever make different decision, less they risk being acussed of failing their fucidial duty to the shareholders

Yeah. That's the biggest reason why I want nothing to do with WotC or Hasbro. Can't believe I haven't been clear about that.

And I didn't say "will". I said "should".

 

[GrimCo]

I linked to the article a while back but a lot of extant images from that era show plenty of swords being used in battle. It just depended on when, where and for what use. Guns did eventually become the standard weapon of course, but until then it was a mix depending on unit and what the soldiers had or were familiar with.

Sword were used in battle. But, to be pedantic, there is difference between being used and being primary weapons. Humble spear was most often chosen primary weapon because one simple reason - reach (and because it was cheap and easy to make). From old phalanx in classic period to heavy cavalry with lances to pike formations. Swords were expensive and harder to produce, That's why they were also status symbol as much as weapon until 13-14th century. They became standard sidearm in 14th ct, even for common soldiers. Now, there was certainly times when swords were better suited (like indoors) then polearms, but in open warfare, sword were secondary weapons.

Handguns were used even in trench warfare of WW. While rifle was main weapon of choice, in close quarters of trench fighting, handgun was more practical in lot's of cases.

What was interesting about the Romans, depending on era, was that they had both a spear and a sword. The spear, called a pilum, had a long spearhead made of soft iron. They would throw it before engaging in melee and the spear would bend after being thrown meaning the enemy couldn't throw it back.

Spear but used more like javelin. Some models had wooden peg holding iron shank so it would bend and brake. Only tip was made of hardened metal to penetrate shield. Even Romans moved away from gladius and pilum. In late period (3-5th ct) they switched to hasta (normal spear) and shield. Hasta became primary weapon, so much so that hastati was sinonimous term for infantry. Same time they moved away from gladius to spatha.

 

[Hussar]

"Promoted" is maybe too strong a word for it. It almost sounds like part of a propaganda campaign to get people to sell body parts.

I don't think it's a conscious thing. They purchase artwork depicting heroic figures using swords. They use the word "sword" a lot instead of "mancatcher" and "caltrop." That doesn't exactly mean they're trying to subvert your efforts to showcase slings.

If you want to make a +5 vorpal tomahawk, you do you!

I never said it was concious or deliberate. It just was. Like you said, the art shows characters with swords. The best magic weapons are swords. Outside of D&D, the image of the knight (or samurai) with a sword dominates the collective conscious.

I'm not assigning blame. Who cares about who did it. The point I'm making all the way along, which you apparently agree with, is that it is what it is.

 

[James Gasik]

Every cantrip is limitless magic ammo.

Which at this point, I wonder why there isn't a "conjure arrow" spell. I mean, technically the Conjuration Wizard could do it, but only one at a time, which isn't particularly helpful.

 

[AlViking]

Sword were used in battle. But, to be pedantic, there is difference between being used and being primary weapons. Humble spear was most often chosen primary weapon because one simple reason - reach (and because it was cheap and easy to make). From old phalanx in classic period to heavy cavalry with lances to pike formations. Swords were expensive and harder to produce, That's why they were also status symbol as much as weapon until 13-14th century. They became standard sidearm in 14th ct, even for common soldiers. Now, there was certainly times when swords were better suited (like indoors) then polearms, but in open warfare, sword were secondary weapons.

Handguns were used even in trench warfare of WW. While rifle was main weapon of choice, in close quarters of trench fighting, handgun was more practical in lot's of cases.

Spear but used more like javelin. Some models had wooden peg holding iron shank so it would bend and brake. Only tip was made of hardened metal to penetrate shield. Even Romans moved away from gladius and pilum. In late period (3-5th ct) they switched to hasta (normal spear) and shield. Hasta became primary weapon, so much so that hastati was sinonimous term for infantry. Same time they moved away from gladius to spatha.

Based on the article I linked to, there are many, many images of swords being used in battle and were often the primary weapon of many individuals. In addition, manuals for combat readiness emphasized swordsmanship. It all depended on where and what era, what the person was familiar with, what their role in combat was. As far as the Romans, yes they changed tactics and weapons in response to the tactics and weapons of their enemy. As I said, it depended on when you were talking about.

But go ahead, keep repeating the echo chamber assumptions. Don't let an academic scholar with knowledge on the subject and all the evidence they showed to back them up change anything. But even if it was accurate that a sword was not a primary weapon (again, sometimes yes sometimes no), D&D does not model mass combat. It models small unit combat often in tight spaces.